Archives For Politics

“Love is love” is slogan that assuages all sexual sin.

If “love is love” is the new moral standard, then adultery, promiscuity, bestiality, and number of other sexual sins are not only justifiable, they are permissible.

This is because “love is love” falsely elevates sexual sin to a morally superior position, where anyone who stands opposed to the assumed “love is love” standard, is belittled as “unloving and immoral”.

Heterosexuals who spout “love is love” know that in the current climate, “love is love” covers a multitude of sexual sin, so why not jump on the bandwagon? Especially when embracing the slogan, enables them to pursue an anything goes ethos.

In the light of this, it’s easy enough to see how the widespread support and use of the “love is love” slogan, isn’t as altruistic or as selfless as it seems. From this perspective, heterosexual support for SSM, and homosexuality, in general, is pure self-centeredness.*

In the words of psychiatrist Karl Menninger, ‘the lure of profit exceeds the prestige of prophet.’ [i]

Pornography also contributes. Many a breakup and the continuing dysfunction of marriages can be attributed to the mythic, false and distorted view that pornography creates in men, about women and sex.

What’s more, these points uncover just how asinine the “love is love” slogan is.

Love cannot define itself.  Love is defined by God. Love comes from who God is. He cannot be anything, or anyone other than who He is.

The very fact that God is love means we cannot say in reverse that love is God. The noun precedes the verb, not the reverse.

Love is defined by the One who exists outside of humanity. His love enters time and space, and graciously seeks out relationship with us.

Love is defined by the One who comes to humanity from outside itself, as both grace and command. God is love and He presents knowledge about Himself to humanity, through His covenant with Israel, and by His revelation in Jesus Christ.

Love is defined by the One who seeks human response, the One who builds life, and gives order to creation; the One who doesn’t abandon His creation to its own inclinations, or the terror of the abyss. In the words of John, ‘we love because He first loved us.’ (1 John 4:19, ESV).

This is the ‘sovereignty of His love’, which doesn’t ‘exercise mechanical force, to move the immobile from without, [or] to rule over puppets or slaves, but rather to triumph in faithful servants and friends, not in their overthrow, but in their obedience, in their own free decision for Him.’ [i]

The ‘sovereignty of God’s love’ liberates humanity from subjective, abstract and artificial alternatives. We are emancipated from the burden of the oppressor, who defines love by whatever he or she decides it should or could be.

To borrow from G.K. Chesterton in Orthodoxy, those who seek to define love by itself, seek the moon, and its morbid light. Then in confusion, ponder about why it doesn’t produce life. Leading G.K.C to conclude: hence, ‘the moon is the mother of lunatics and has given them all her name.’

The individual who jettisons the ‘the sovereignty of God’s love’ from love inevitably asserts a definition of love made in their own image and desires.

Under the “love is love” slogan, no one is allowed to challenge this definition. Any reasoned disagreement outside this abstract idea of love, is measured as an act of hatred, betrayal and treachery – anti-love.

Therefore, to assert that God is love is to enter into a revolt against it.

As a revolt it asserts that love is not Lordless. Love is not meaningless or without purpose. Love is defined by what God does, and what God does comes from who God is [ii].

Love cannot define itself any more than the slave or abused child can define freedom. The sin of others has distorted their view of the world. Lies replace truth. They’re been taught to believe the abuse he or she receives at the hands of their oppressor is normal. In this way, “love is love” fails the oppressed and gives legitimacy to the oppressor. Love that defines itself negates itself.

Alternatively, the ‘sovereignty of God’s love’ encompasses both His “yes” and “no”. God’s “yes” to the genuinely oppressed, raises humanity up to challenge the claims of the oppressor. In this way, God’s firm “yes” and loving “no” to the oppressed and the oppressor are an outworking of His sovereignty. Love is not Lordless.

That, God is love, means love cannot be love without God at its center.

Likewise, human freedom grounded in love cannot be true freedom without the One who loves in freedom. It cannot be true freedom without the ‘God who frees man and woman to be free for Him and free for each other.’ [iii]

Without God, love becomes a cheap commodity, whose meaning is traded and swapped for whatever sells best. Love is downgraded to emotion, sex, money and the satisfying of an individual’s selfish desires.

“Love is love” is newspeak; a tool used to uphold human claims to ownership of what love is. Love is then determined to be anything the oppressor wants it to be.

Roger Scruton helps to brings this into clearer focus, noting the Communist practice of controlling language and meaning, under ‘the communist conviction that you could change reality by changing words […]The purpose of communist Newspeak, has been to protect ideology from the malicious attacks of real things.’ [iv]

For example, if the slogan “love is love” is taken to its logical end, aren’t the obscenely wealthy, or the national socialists justified in their love for money, nation or race, and to hell with the consequences?

If “love is love” justifies lifestyle choices, such as its promotion as a legitimate argument for same-sex marriage. Then doesn’t “love is love” justify servitude to a Führer, the State, and his/her ‘ism, and the reign of terror that often follows?

In light of this, aren’t “love is love” advocates, especially those who protest crony capitalists, who love their money, in the end just hypocrites selling something no one should ever want to buy?

Under this shadow, “love is love” is lordless, abstract, confused and empty. “Love is love” is a cover-up, and like all self-justification, “love is love” is proven to be a lie. [v] It cannot sustain a working definition of what love actually is.

The first cause of change in attitudes towards homosexuality and same-sex marriage is the erosion of heterosexual marriage. This erosion includes the downgrade, and dismissal of Biblical theology which asserts that God is love, and that under ‘the sovereignty of His love’, ‘woman is free for man, man is free for woman, and together both are free for God’. This comes by way of the covenant fulfilled in The Gospel, where, in His costly reconciling of humanity to Himself in Jesus Christ, God proves who and what love is.

“Love is love” is no substitute for this. It is no substitute for the One who was, and is, and is to come.

Maranatha.


References:

[i] Menninger, K. 1973. Whatever Became of Sin? Hawthorn Books Inc.

[ii] Barth, K.1942 CD II/II: The Election of Jesus Christ  Hendrickson Publishers p.178

[ii] ibid.

[iii] Barth, K. 1951 CD III.IV The doctrine of creation Hendrickson Publishers pp.170-180

[iv] Scruton, R. 2015. Fools, Frauds & Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left Bloomsbury Publishing, (p.8)

[v] Torrance, T.F. 2008. Incarnation: The Person & Life of Christ, IVP Academic

* I don’t doubt that there are sincere believers in the slogan, the evidence provided by James, however, suggests that such believers might be few and far between.

(Originally published on The Caldron Pool, 12th July, 2019)

Photo by James Lee on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2019

Under current defamation law, social media users can be held legally responsible for third-party content on any post they make.

The guiding rule seems to be: You posted it. You incited it. Ergo, you’re responsible for it.

In other words, anything someone posts on my timeline or writes in the comments section, that is deemed offensive, defamatory or “hate speech” could end in a lawsuit.

For those who only have a private Facebook account, there is currently no mechanic to prevent this from happening. The only real preventative measure is to keep an eye on comments or keep your friends and comments list small, simple and drama free.

For those who choose to have a public Facebook page, there are two ways to solve the problem before it becomes one. First, Facebook’s mechanism for pages allows content providers to filter (block) certain words. The second way is to have dedicated moderators screen every comment.

Anti-defamation and anti-discrimination laws are great servants, as long as they remain a shield. However, these laws make for a terrible sword in the hands of an opportunist who views everyone not in agreement with them as a traitor, hater or “literal Nazi”.

Defamation laws weren’t written with social media in mind. David Rolph, professor of law at UNSW, highlighted this in his piece for Sydney Morning Herald, where he advocated reform, stating that ‘the last consideration of defamation law by the Australian Law Reform Commission was almost 40 years ago, decades before the advent of the internet.’ (SMH, 2018)

Rolph also mentioned the need to ensure a balance between upholding freedom of speech, and policing false speech; ensuring that people don’t have their reputations unfairly damaged, and can find ‘effective redress, through last resort financial compensation, or more easier remedies of retractions, corrections, and take-down orders’ for online content that is clearly false or blatantly misleading.

The Australian took to an editorial last week to call upon the government to ‘overhaul defamation laws’ after a recent supreme court ruling looks set to establish a precedent, making ‘media companies legally responsible for comments made by other people on the company’s social media pages.

In essence, companies with a public Facebook page are liable for third-party content on their pages. The editorial noted, however, that ‘moderating, blocking or hiding comments, is untenable because of the volume of material that works its way through pubic pages, and the amount of resources it would take to do so; and even though Facebook hasn’t provided a mechanic which allows for comments to be turned off, Facebook isn’t held responsible.’ (The Australian, 2019)

In a recent case related to this, conservative Facebook page, Political Posting Mumma, administrated by mum of four, Marijke Rancie, was sued and pressured into agreeing to a large financial settlement out of court, because of third party content on her Facebook page.

While some third party comments were obviously wrong, and defamatory, Marijke’s original post and comment wasn’t intended to be so. Despite this, and the fact that Facebook doesn’t have a disable comments section, Marijke was, under current defamation law, considered liable for the comments made by others on her Facebook page.

This was confirmed twice by BuzzFeed who cited the plaintiff, Adele Moleta, saying that ‘she was defamed by multiple (200) comments on the post and that Marijke is, for legal purposes, the publisher of those comments’. (BuzzFeed, 2018)

In a disproportionate response, apparently designed to intimidate Marijke, Moleta was backed up by a ‘lawyer on a no-win, no-fee basis, and two pro-bono barristers, one of whom is a QC’ to fight her case against Marijke.

Those looking to make an example of Marijke, because of her outspoken “no” against Same-sex marriage, concerns about the ‘Safe Schools’ program, and concerns about teaching LGBT ideology being given centre stage in schools, found a reason, under current defamation laws concerning third-party content, to do so.

It’s worth noting that while BuzzFeed acknowledges the alleged pain and suffering caused to Moleta by Marijke, BuzzFeed has, since December 2018, posted four articles by Sainty Lane, revisiting the cause of that alleged pain and suffering in minute detail.

Lane also published an article this week discussing the need to vet comments, referring to the same court ruling as the editorial from the Australian.

Lane confirms the problem of defamation laws and third party content, yet gives no mention of the case against Marijke. Even though, Marjike was sued under the premise that her Facebook page was a media company.

Lane also acknowledged the difficulty in policing third party comments, stating that there is ‘no official way to turn off comments’ [i] on Facebook, citing solicitor, Hannah Marhsall as saying “I feel like the legal system and the internet are on this collision path. And what’s going to happen next is really hard to figure.” (BuzzFeed, 2019)

One of the biggest challenges to any reform of defamation law is the contentious term, “hate speech”. This is broadly defined by Facebook as anything that is

 ‘a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation.’ (FB, 2019)

Facebook provides no explanation of the latter, and seems to be content with filing it in under the banner of “hate speech”.

Social media companies appear vague and unconcerned about users being sued for defamation because of third party comments made on their own social media posts. These companies also appear to be aloof when providing an objective rounded definition of what ‘dehumanizing speech’, ‘statements of inferiority’, ‘calls for exclusion’, or ‘segregation’ are.

If dehumanizing speech is “hate speech”, why hasn’t Facebook addressed Leftists who use pejorative terms for Christians on their platform? Why does Facebook allow comments that falsely equate Donald Trump with Hitler, or falsely equate any person who gives Trump a cautious “yes”, a Nazi, homophobe, Islamophobe or racist?

And as Republican Senator, Dan Crenshaw said to Google this week, ‘we fought the Nazis. It makes sense to conclude that by you calling a person a Nazi, you’re inciting violence against them.’

Though the term is widespread, no one really seems to know what “hate speech” actually is; it’s as vague and asinine as the phrases “woke”, and “love is love”. [ii]

From Marijke’s example, The Australian, and BuzzFeed’s Saintly Lane’s own observations, it’s easy to see how ambiguous terms like “hate speech”, and unreformed, complex defamation laws, could be used to the advantage of anyone wanting to justify forcing conservatives and Christians out of the public sphere. These could also be used to the advantage of anyone wanting to punish Christians because of perceived wrongs, or because the Spirit and Truth that Christians uphold, does not align with whatever, and whomever, the zeitgeist (spirit of the age) tell us all to worship.

Some LGBT lobby groups already police speech, seeking to punish people for using “incorrect” gender pronouns or for misgendering someone who identifies as LGBT. With the large amount of resources and financial backing for LGBT lobby groups, it would be naïve to think that surveillance of high profile Christians and conservatives on social media doesn’t happen.

Chris Tomlinson, from Brietbart, reported a case this week, where a 52 year old Swedish man, who was an administrator for Facebook group, ‘Stand up for Sweden’, was convicted of “hate” comments made by other Facebook users. The page was reported to police by an ‘online social justice activist group, called Näthatsgranskaren, which has been touted as being responsible for a rise in investigations and prosecutions for online hate speech in Sweden.’ (Breitbart, 2019)

Dialogue is the higher ground in conflict resolution. Lawsuits are a last resort. No one should be bullied, sued or intimidated for speaking truth in love, or be reprimanded and silenced for sharing their faith. Nor should they be punished for providing fair criticism, or for sharing their concerns about socio-political issues with others online.

Continue to speak boldly, and with grace, but until defamation laws have been reformed, and until Social Media companies improve their user interfaces, vet comments because if third party content can and be used against you, it will be.


References:

Rolph, D. 2018. Australia’s defamation laws are ripe for overhaul, Sydney Morning Herald, 9th Dec. 2018 Sourced, 2nd July, 2019

Sainty, L. 2018. One of the faces of the SSM “no” campaign is being sued over a Facebook post, BuzzFeed 20th December, 2018. Sourced 2nd July, 2019.

Saintly, L. 2019. How a Queer woman took on a prominent conservative activist and won $100,000, BuzzFeed, 18th June, 2019. Sourced, 2nd July, 2019.

Saintly, L. 2019. “Political Posting Mumma” has issued a rare apology over comments on one of her Facebook posts, BuzzFeed 24th January, 2019. Sourced 2nd July, 2019.

Saintly, L. 2019. The Woman behind “PPM” has Apologised after being sued over a Facebook Post, BuzzFeed, 4th June, 2019. Sourced, 2nd July, 2019.

Saintly, L. 2019. This Court ruling on Facebook comments is a huge headache for  the Media, BuzzFeed, 28th June, 2019. Sourced 2nd July 2019.

Tomlinson, C. 2019. Swedish Man Convicted of hate comments he did not make, 28th June, 2019. Sourced, 2nd July 2019.

[i] The Facebook mechanic for pages is useful, but their user interface is ultimately useless to anyone looking to moderate a page by themselves. Comments are piled into one notification, and each individual comment has to be viewed in order to see them. If you have 100 plus comments every post, it’s the equivalent of a fulltime job just to keep up. Even turning comments off, if that function was available would cause problems. This is because comments are an important part of the Facebook algorithm when it comes to bumping posts on newsfeeds.

[ii] Back in February, a 70 year old Swedish man was charged with “hate speech” for posting on Facebook that “Somalis are lazy”.

Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash

Originally posted on The Caldron Pool, 3rd July, 2019.

©Rod Lampard, 2019

Eric Abetz gave one of the most important short speeches in Australian political history this week. Yet few Australians would know he even spoke a word, let alone know who Abetz is or what he stands for.

Eric Abetz was born in Germany in 1958, and came with his family to Australia in 1961.

In the 1980s, Abetz worked his way through ‘University as a part-time taxi driver, and farmhand. Once completing his law degree, he went on to practice law in Hobart’s northern suburbs’. [i]

He joined the Liberal Party in 1976 and was appointed to the Senate in February, 1994.

During the Howard era, he worked in various ministerial departments, later becoming Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. After Malcolm Turnbull’s coup against Tony Abbott in 2015, Abetz took a back seat, where he remained a consistent voice for Western Civilisation and the healthy traditions built on a Biblical Christian foundation, such as classical liberalism and freedom, and its correlative individual rights and responsibilities. [ii]

Two years ago, the L.N.P Senator for Tasmania was among the few LNP politicians brave enough to give his “no”, to the then L.N.P Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnball’s, rush to push changes to the Marriage Act into law.

Abetz presented a well reasoned explanation of the problems associated with shredding up the traditional concept a marriage, by surrendering that concept to subjectivism and the insecure and ever-changing, progressive (and increasingly Marxist) understanding of gender, history, theology, society, ethnicity and culture. He publicly lamented the changes, stating with conviction, “it’s a change I regret for the sake of our children”. [iii]

In that same speech, Abetz was right to call out the ‘Safe Schools program’ as “Orwellian”. He was right to call out corporate overreach, as big business marched with contempt for those in their employ, who refused to raise the rainbow flag, or march under it, during the Same Sex marriage survey. He was right to warn Australians that the SSM bill “wasn’t a simple amendment”, accusing the bill of going “a lot further than that which was approved by the Australian people” [iv]. Abetz was right to concede, that the “challenge of parliament is (was) to deliver on both same-sex marriage and the full protection of our freedoms.”[v]

Two years on, with high profile cases such as the firing of Israel Folau, the bullying of Margaret Court, the car bombing of the ACL headquarters, and the public head butting of ex-Prime Minister Tony Abbott, we can say that the challenge to protect freedom, is now a challenge the Australian parliament has failed to meet.

Alongside his speech on the Same-Sex Marriage bill, the Senator’s words this week are a reminder to the Australian parliament of its dismal failure to uphold its determined commitment to preserve freedom, on balance with its corrosive placating of Leftism and LGBT ideology.

Once again Senator Abetz stood up for ALL Australians, stating,

“Today, our society is in grave danger of losing this rich heritage, together with its attendant benefits. That is why I have taken this, the first opportunity the 46th Parliament has afforded me, to make a plea to defend our freedoms. To fail to do so is to squander the legacy bequeathed to us…”

Once again, the Senator was right when saying that,

“In an exercise of Orwellian proportions, these sports stars were targeted for exclusion in the name of inclusion and discriminated against in the name of tolerance. You don’t have to agree with Izzy to agree with his right to express his religious views, or his wife’s right to back him.”

The Senator then outlined why the Folau precedent a threat the freedom.

“Today it’s Izzy’s religious views and his wife’s loyal support. Yesterday it was the Professor Ridd’s scientific views. Tomorrow it might be somebody’s political view. The next might be someone’s environmental view.”
This is a fight for freedom of speech which impacts us all. The government must, and I am confident will, respond to the expressions of the quiet Australians on 18 May and ensure our freedoms, which were bought with the highest of prices, are not sacrificed and squandered on the altar of political correctness. As Sir Robert Menzies so articulately encapsulated in ‘We believe’: ‘We believe in the great human freedoms: to worship, to think, to speak.’”

Senator Abetz’s words are a welcome change to the sleight of hand drivel that often keeps the “quiet Australian” at arm’s length from Australia’s bureaucratic caste.

The Senator’s speech is also in stark contrast to Greens politician, Adam Bandt, who yesterday posted a call to “fight for the Welfare State” on Twitter:

“This LNP gov wants to destroy the welfare state & we need to stop them. We need a big movement that fights for services, not tax cuts, and that won’t cave in to the Libs when it matters. Be part of the fight for a more equal world.”

Instead of advocating for more laws, less freedom and bigger government, Bandt, like many of Australia’s public servants need to get “woke” to what is unraveling freedom and address the corrosion of it.

In the words of Augusto Zimmerman, ‘we need a restoration of freedom’s bill, not a religious discrimination act, one that restores free speech and freedom of association for all, a law against the incitement of religious violence would also do more good than one against religious discrimination’. [vi]

We need less laws and more clarity on tried and true old ones, not more. Prime Minister Scott Morrison should begin by removing or reforming, the contentious 18C amendment to anti-discrimination law. Then insist that a basic understanding of civics, theology and history (without the biased Marxist lens) be essential to a holistic high school education.

In failing in their commitment to preserve freedom, politicians are showing Australians that the well-funded and resourceful relationship between public servants and Leftism comes first.

In failing in their commitment to preserve freedom, as was promised during the Same-Sex marriage survey, Australia’s public servants are showing the rest of us, that they would rather march under a different flag and culture, to that of the Anzacs, whose sacrifice handed us a mandate to preserve the healthy traditions that they so bravely laid down their lives to protect.

It’s this point of contact with history that gives Tasmanian Senator’s speech gravitas:

“Freedom is worth defending. Freedom is worth nurturing. Freedom is worth championing. As our national anthem extols, ‘Australians all let us rejoice, For we are young and free’. Let’s keep it that way.”

Video:

https://www.facebook.com/SenatorAbetz/videos/2274673139509493/


References:

[i] Abetz, E. About Eric, Abetz.com.au Sourced 7th July, 2019.

[ii] ibid, 2019

[iii] Abetz, E. 2017. Speech to the Senate – Marriage Bill, 27th November, 2017. Sourced 7th July, 2019.

[iv] ibid, 2017

[v] ibid, 2017

[vi] Zimmerman, A. 2019. We need a restoration of freedom’s bill, not a religious discrimination act.  The Spectator Australia, 3rd July, 2019. Sourced, 7th July, 2019.

Full transcript to Speech to the Senate  in Support of Freedom of Speech.

Originally posted on The Caldron Pool, 8th July, 2019.

©Rod Lampard, 2019

Nike’s decision to pull a special edition of Air Max shoes featuring the ‘Betsy Ross’ Flag, used by Revolutionaries, during the 1776, American war of Independence, is shallow and proves that social justice warriors are hypocrites.

Reasons for the recall vary. The BBC reported, that Nike recalled the shoes because of ‘complaints about the use of an old US flag embraced by white nationalists’. The BBC righty pointed out, that American Nazi sympathizers (German American Bund) used the flag during the 1930’s. However, the Bund also used the Stars and Stripes. Leaving unanswered the question of how and why this makes the 1776, ‘Betsy Ross’ flag a symbol of racism.

The Nazis used the eagle, the slogan ‘Gott mit uns’ (God is with us), drank water, drove cars, flew planes, used electricity and had their own cinema. Context matters. Just because the Nazis drank water, doesn’t make drinking water racist. Borrowing the BBC’s logic in trying to justify the decision, we may as well say, water is racist. Get woke and boycott it.

The Wall Street Journal took a more direct approach, reporting that Nike’s decision was based on NFL star-turned-activist, ‘Colin Kaepernick, who told the company it shouldn’t sell a shoe with a symbol that he and others consider offensive.’

Not everyone is happy with Nike’s bizarre decision. As the Daily Wire’s Emily Zanotti pointed out, the shoes were in the stores ready to go for the July 4th celebrations, leaving customers confused.

African-American Podcaster and ‘Grace to You’, theologian, Darrell Bernard Harrison took to Facebook, calling it a ‘dust up’. In a lengthy post Harrison criticized the hypocrisy saying

‘the Betsy Ross flag was openly displayed during both of Barack Obama’s inaugurations—both of them. But all of a sudden, that same flag is symbolic of systemic racism? See, this is why I don’t take black liberals seriously. The Betsy Ross flag was of no significance to them whatsoever when the White House was occupied by someone who looks like them. ’

Candace Owens and The Daily Wire also pushed back on both Nike and its supporters by reminding people that ‘a full month of LGBT celebrations MUST be recognized everywhere (even on your UberApp) – but even one day, or one pair of sneakers celebrating America is too much’

 

In response to the Nike recall, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey (Rep) withdrew from an agreement with the company arguing that it,

“…has bowed to the current onslaught of political correctness and historical revisionism, it is a shameful retreat for the company. American businesses should be proud of our country’s history, not abandoning it.” (Ducey, Twitter)

Most major news outlets have widely publicized the fact that Nike was offered financial incentives that would see around 500 jobs created in the city of Goodyear.

500 potential jobs in Goodyear, Arizona, gone, not because of racism, but because of a guilty-by-association subjective rule, applied by Social Justice Warrior activists who fight racism, by viewing everything, and anyone, through a racist lens.

In this case the poor become spectators, sidelined. All while those who claim to fight on their behalf, squabble over a piece of material that is now considered offensive because it was “once seen being displayed by white nationalists”.

The loss of these jobs won’t affect Kaepernick. He enjoys a multi-million dollar deal with Nike. Add onto this, a share of a multi-million dollar settlement from ‘a lawsuit that alleged the league’s 32 owners had conspired to keep them out of football due to their role in leading player national anthem protests.’ (Fox Business, 2019)

Kaepernick, similar to that of Democratic-Socialist, Orcazio-Cortez’s opposition to Amazon setting up in New York, doesn’t seem all that interested in helping raise people out of poverty by providing them with employment opportunities. Just like the very thing they claim to be fighting against, they choose to use symbolism and gestures to rule the day.

There is no justice in this, and the hypocrisy couldn’t be any more blatant.

The recall of Air Max shoes featuring the ‘Betsy Ross’ Flag is a storm in a tea-cup. It’s either a master stroke of marketing genius to promote the product (which is now in high demand), or it’s further proof that virtue signalling elites are more interested in keeping their names in the paper, than putting their hand to the grindstone, where they can help others, help themselves.


References:

BBC, Nike loses factory aid as ‘racist trainer’ row intensifies, 3rd July, 2019.

Gage, J.  AOC blew Amazon out of New York in 2019 over Tax breaks but demanded  one for herself in 2012, The Washington Examiner, 16th April, 2019. Sourced, 3rd July, 2019.

Khadeeja Safdar and Andrew Beaton,  Nike Nixes ‘Betsy Ross Flag’ Sneaker After Colin Kaepernick Intervenes,  WSJ. 1st July, 2019. Sourced 3rd July, 2019.

Barrabi, T. NFL Paid Kaepernick, Reid under $10M to settle collusion lawsuit: Report, Fox Business, 21st March, 2019. Sourced, 3rd July, 2019.

Prestigiacomo, A. Arizona Gov Makes Major Announcement After Nike Pulls American Flag Shoe At Colin Kaepernick’s Behest, Daily Wire, 2nd July, 2019. Sourced, 3rd July, 2019.

Zanotti, E. Nike Pulls American Flag Sneaker After Complaint From Colin Kaepernick, Daily Wire, 1st July, 2019. Sourced, 3rd July, 2019.

Originally posted on The Caldron Pool, 5th July, 2019.

©Rod Lampard, 2019

An alleged Google email leaked to investigative journalist organization Project Veritas, claims to show Google employee, Liam Hopkins, labeling PragerU, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro among others, as Nazis.

The Washington Times reported that the message was part of an ‘apparent chain to the company’s transparency and ethics group’.

The alleged email from within Google read:

“Today it is often 1 or 2 steps to nazis, if we understand that PragerU, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro et al are nazis using the dog whistles you mention in step 1 […] I can receive these recommendations regardless of what I’m looking at, and I have recorded thousands of internet users sharing the same experience.” (see below)

If the email is as legitimate as Project Veritas claims, Google apparently equates anything conservative with being far-right. The redacted email also included a suggestion that Google identify content that the company deems to be far-right, in order to direct people away from far-right content.

Few would disagree with Google restraining Nazi propaganda or websites from appearing on their search engine, or in its list of suggestions. The problem is Google saying with one hand that they are against hate speech and inciting people to violence, and then with the other hand, Google appearing to label people as Nazis. (It’s worth noting, that Shapiro and Prager are both Jewish, so is PragerU’s CEO, Marissa Streit.)

The alleged email leaked from within Google isn’t the only reason for concern. It just happens to be one example in a list of other examples that are raising questions about whether or not there is a double standard at Google, such as Youtube’s censorship of conservative content, in particular censorship of PragerU videos.  A double standard, which in essence, says, “we’re superior” therefore it’s okay for Google to breach rules it sets for others, because when it comes down to deciding on what is and isn’t “hate speech”, and on deciding who is, and isn’t a nazi, Google knows best.

As I’ve pointed out in the past crying wolf about Nazism dehumanizes others, and diminishes the heinous crime of Nazism. Recklessly calling someone a “Nazi” is a shaming technique designed to control the opponent in an attempt to discredit, and silence them. The same goes for those who would paint all white people as racist. It’s blatantly self-seeking and manipulative.

This is what Republican Senator, Dan Crenshaw called out yesterday, when he articulated the dangers of calling someone a Nazi to Google’s Global Director of Information Policy, Derek Slater,

“When you call somebody a Nazi or you can make the argument that you’re inciting violence and here’s how, as a country, we all agree that Nazis are bad. We actually invaded an entire continent to defeat the Nazis. It’s normal to say Hashtag punch a Nazi because there’s this common thread among this in this country that they’re bad and that there yeah, evil and that they should be destroyed. So when you’re operating off of that premise and it’s frankly, it’s a, it’s a good premise to operate on. Well, what you’re implying then is that it’s okay to use violence against them when you label them, when one of the most powerful social media companies in the world labels people as Nazis, you could make the argument that’s inciting violence. What you’re doing is wholly irresponsible. [And yet] It doesn’t stop there.“ (see below).

Link both the reckless labeling of people as Nazis and the slogan “all white people are racist” together, and the cocktail of hate is complete. All that’s needed are chambers filled with the pesticide Zyklon B, cyclone fencing, and everyone determined by Leftists, to have “life unworthy of life”.

Any well-informed reader who knows the history behind the genocidal rampaging in Rwanda, of the Hutus against the Tutsis, will see that there is good reason for serious concern.

Email (click to enlarge):

Crenshaw:


References:

Lampard, R.  6th March, 2019. Crying Wolf About Nazism, Caldron Pool. Sourced 28th June, 2019

Project Veritas, 25th June, 2019. New Google Document Leaked Describing Shapiro, Prager, as ‘nazis using dogwhistles’, sourced, 28th June, 2019.

Richardson, V. 25th June, 2019, Project Veritas posts alleged Google email comparing Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson to ‘nazis’ Washington Times. Sourced 28th June, 2019.

Originally published on The Caldron Pool, 30th June, 2019, ‘Google allegedly calls conservatives Prager, Peterson and Shapiro ‘Nazis’, US Senator fires back: ‘You are inciting violence’ 

Photo by Charles 🇵🇭 on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2019

Madonna’s promoters are firing back at the New York Post for allegedly lying about poor ticket sales for the artist.

In the beginning of June the New York Post’s Richard Morgan reported that ticket sales for Madonna concerts promoting her latest album, ‘Madame X’, were lagging and had ‘tarnished’ the tour. Morgan went on to compare previous ticket sales in much larger venues with current ticket sales the smaller venues chosen for the concerts, suggesting that the comparison indicated ‘Madonna was struggling to sell them’.

Chris Willman from Variety magazine cautiously came to Madonna’s defense, citing promoter, Arthur Fogel, (Live Nation’s chairman of global music), who roughly called the report fake news, saying it was “absolute lies”.

Fogel also went on to point out the pattern of negative coverage that the NYP seems to give to Madonna, stating,
“There’s something really amiss there. If you go back in history, each of her last four tours, they’ve gone on full attack mode on Madonna.”

Willman said that ‘on the surface, the Post is not wrong that there are tickets still available for most, if not all, of Madonna’s upcoming shows in 2,000-3,000 seat halls’. He then gave three reasons for the slower than expected ticket sales being where they were. First noting a discrepancy cause by a new system used to ‘weed out scalpers’, ticket prices and location.

However, the New York Post wasn’t the only outlet to report the news. Terry Zeller of The Daily Mail wrote a piece discussing mixed reactions to the soft-porn album art, and quoted an “insider” as saying that ‘despite Madonna’s team and promoters informing media that several shows were ‘sold out’ during a multi week lottery ticket sale, the shows and their remaining tickets hit Ticketmaster today. And it’s a mess.’

Dave Brooks from Billboard fired back with the headline: ‘Madonna’s 17 Madame X Shows In New York Are More Than 90% Sold Out, So Everybody Chill’. Brooks leaned on the same justifications as Variety, adding that ‘a lack of sellouts for what some would consider a once-in-a-lifetime experience doesn’t mean that Madonna’s tour is “tarnished”.

On the 21st Variety once again came to the artist’s aid defending her decision to play smaller venues. Mackenzie Nichols stated that the decision was based on ‘Madonna’s desire to maintain intimacy with her fans.’

Also worth noting is Nichols’ special mention of Madonna’s admiration for Joan of Arc, citing the artist as saying:

“They accused [Joan of Arc] of being a heretic, a lesbian, a witch, a boy, a freak, and of course I can relate to all of those things; and so, in the end, she was burned at the stake, and then she became a saint, and of course, this is what we always do. We destroy our prophets and our sages and then we put them on pedestals. We have to stop doing that and appreciate people while they’re still alive.”

Even with lower ticket sales and smaller venues, album sales are doing well for the artist in both the United States and Australia – according to ARIA, Madonna’s ‘Madame X’ is currently number 2 here, and according to Billboard, it’s number 1 in the U.S – but the MTV era that gave longevity to artists is long over. We now live in a social media age, where new is old after 24 hours. This is the culture Madonna helped create. Her relating to Joan of Arc may also include a sense of rejection due to lower turnover from tickets, and a disappointment at the fact that she is playing smaller venues, when she once packed stadiums.

If Madonna’s popularity is waning, chances are it has nothing to do with martyrdom, or her being a prophet or a sage. In all probability it’s related to her anti-Trump, and pro-abortion, activism.

During a speech given at the Women’s March in January, 2017, Madonna, joining a chorus filled with dissonance and hate, declared to Americans that she had given an awful lot of ‘’consideration into blowing up the Whitehouse”. This was in response to Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 United States election to Donald Trump.

Then last week in an interview with Andrew Denton, Madonna, suggested that Jesus would be okay with abortion. The MTV golden girl claiming that ‘she wanted an interview with the Pope to convince him that he was wrong on abortion’ because, ‘don’t you think Jesus would agree that a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body?”(W.T)

Madonna joins Elton John in attempting to lecture the world, particularly Christians, on biblical theology. This week, Elton John made a bizarre statement suggesting that all reasoned Christian criticism of LGBTQIA+ ideology and activism was abusive, violent and an affront to God (Daily Wire).

By their words and actions, it appears that Madonna and Elton John – both MTV demigods of a bi-gone era – consider themselves to be closer to Joan of Arc and Jesus Christ, than the rest of us.


Originally posted as Madonna and Elton John slam Christians, claim Jesus would be Pro-Abortion and Pro-LGBTQ on Caldron Pool, 27th June 2019.

Photo Credit: Luis Alfonso Orellana on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2019

An Emily’s Voice promotional which featured the words, “a heart beats at four weeks”, on four Newcastle buses[1] has been removed. The action was taken after an outraged Newcastle resident accused the pro-life promotional material of being “dangerous propaganda; a guilt driven directive on what [a woman should] do with their body.”[2]

The complaint was posted on Facebook to the NSW Transport minister’s page and “action was immediately taken’[3] to tear the material down.

Emily’s voice is an organization that seeks to encourage people to consider alternatives to abortion. Their mission is to help Australians fall in love with the unborn, and to support women with an unplanned or crisis pregnancy’[4].

The current Emily’s Voice campaign is to encourage a rethink about abortion. Paul O’Rourke, the CEO of Emily’s Voice, told the Herald Sun that,

“There are Govt. campaigns to reduce smoking, the road toll, cancer and heart disease. Surely there’s a place to reduce abortion which claims more Aussie lives each year than any other cause?”

O’Rourke’s complete explanation was posted in full onto the Emily’s Voice website,

‘[Emily’s Voice] is seeking to restart and reshape the life conversation in a sensible, sensitive way free of guilt and condemnation so women make an informed choice.
We are pro-women and for-children.
The ads promote notbornyet.com containing relevant and timely information for women experiencing an unplanned or crisis pregnancy, including where to get practical, free support.
Most Australians are unaware there are an estimated 70,000 abortions, 95 per cent of which are performed on healthy women carrying healthy children.”

There are four toxic messages being reinforced by the Government’s reactionary removal of such benign campaign material.

First, is the double standard that says it is okay to demand that the government fund and support abortion, but not okay for the government to support awareness about alternatives to abortion.

Second, the false belief that conceiving a child is equal to having contracted a sexually transmitted disease. Consequently, abortion is reduced to being equal with the treatment to remove an STD. If you openly disagree with this, you’re harming women.

Third, the false claim that only pro-abortion people care about women.

Lastly, educating people about biology and implicitly reminding them of their responsibilities and humane obligations, in response to the natural biological consequences of sex, is apparently now regarded as “hate speech” and propaganda.

Jean Elshtain, feminist and mother of four, one of whom was a disabled child, noted,

‘without allowing Right-to-Life women to speak the truth as they understand it, without engaging them from a stand that respects uncoerced dialogue […] we will continue to treat them in distorted, presumptuous, and prejudicial ways.’[5]

In other words, if outraged individuals continue to suppress dissenting voices and opinions that they find offensive, or simply just don’t want to hear, those individuals will never hear anything other than the sound of their own voices. This is the very definition of an echo chamber.

There is an alternative to abortion. Emily’s Voice wants to not only give a voice to that, they want to stand with, by and alongside women who chose to take up that alternative.

This isn’t “dangerous propaganda or guilt driven directives”. It is respect for human life in all of its stages. This is the active ‘appreciation of biological facts; a radical feeling of awe at the mystery and value of all human life made in the image of God’; and it is the honest recognition that ‘every deliberate interruption of pregnancy, whatever the circumstances, is a taking of human life.’[6]

What is dangerous is elected officials giving directives based on a Facebook comment (as appears to be the case in this instance). In this the discerning citizen faces the same heavy rod on their backs that has been thrown down by the whim of the ruler in centuries past.

Instead of Transport minister, Andrew Constance being “appalled” by Emily’s Voice, he should have applauded the care in which they took to communicate such a difficult topic in a positive way.

de Vivre Selon Dieu


References:

[1] Jeanette, Heartbeat bus ad to controversial, Emily’s Voice, 21st June 2019, Sourced, 24th June 2019

[2] Phoebe Malony, 2019. Emily’s Voice Anti-Abortion advertising removed, Herald Sun Sourced 24th June 2019

[3] Ibid, 2019.

[4] Emily’s Voice, Mission Statement sourced 24th June 2019

[5] Elshtain, J.B. 1981. Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and Political thought, Princeton University Press (p.312)

[6] Karl Barth, 1961. CD. 3:IV Freedom for Life: The Protection of Life, Hendrickson Publishers, (p.419)

Originally published on Caldron Pool 24th June 2019

© Rod Lampard, 2019